Dan Chung live blogs from the Olympics with iPhone and Snapseed

Following on from the discussions about Dean Mouhtaropoulos' decision to use a Panasonic to capture the Olympics, here's further support for the 'it's the photographer, not the gear' argument. Photojournalist, videographer and dpreview contributor Dan Chung has been capturing the Olympic experience with his iPhone. In conjunction with some binoculars, a clip-on Schneider lens and the Snapseed processing app, he's been live-blogging from the games. The images are understandably small but present a fascinating, near-live insight into what's happening in London.

Comments

Under poor shooting condition, gear is also important. Mr. Chung uses some binoculars because of distance issue. FYI, a high quality binocular, like a LEICA Ultravid 10x42 HD costs over US$2,000. Using a smartphone with a binocular does need very high shooting skill because you need to focus manually and it is very difficult to pan a binocular and a smartphone.

Some snobbery is GOOD, you know. Else, you wouldn't have someone to discriminate between Chef-Boyardee & real cooking. And the cost has nothing to do with it, I have an Olympus E-PL1 that I paid barely $210 for WITH the lens, it has to do with the fact that smartphone cameras (the new Nokia being a POSSIBLE exception) are basically glorified Chef-Boyardee machines.

The points I see in this project, are: 1. This is nothing but an advertisement for Iphone. Apple have a smart non standard and effective way to advertise their products. This article is a very good example.2. ”It's not the camera, but the lens” in this case, binocular as telephoto lens, wide angle adaptor for fish eye efects.If Dan would like to convince me that ”it's not the camera but the photographer” I suggest him to shot a wedding with a smart phone as a next project, and name it ”wedding album shot with a smart phone” without mentioning the brand. I also suggest him to use the new 41mp smart phone for ability to heavy crop the images.

I only partly agree.There are some adaptors that allow you to mount a reflex lens onto the iPhone, but they are rubbish.What good can a professional lens do if you're limited by that cheap small plastic thing in front of the sensor?And then you're limited by the sensor itself.No, I think that shooting with a cameraphone, even with binoculars and fancy add-ons is still shooting with a cameraphone, all the good and the bad of it.

Way to go Dan Chung- nice to see some out of the box thinking. Shows talent + creativity + taking advantage of an opportunity = results. A few Picasso quotes come to mind: All children are artists. The problem is how to remain an artist once he grows up. Also another: Art is the elimination of the unnecessary.

My personal take on this is a little different and what I think is a bit down to earth.

Every now and then I'll meet another parent who makes the comment that they wish they had a "good camera" like my dSLR. They are under the impression that if they had a "good camera" they would get better pictures of their kids, and then they go on to mention how bad their compact camera is. And they don't even consider trying to take good pictures with their compact camera.

I try to tell them, with a few tips-and-tricks, their compact camera can take amazing pictures. But they aren't convinced. Which is a shame, because they are losing a lot of opportunities to get better pictures of their kids with the camera that they have now. But they just don't believe.

I'm going to share this article on my personal Facebook page with my friends to show what a professional can do with a less than "awesome" camera . . .

I think it's perfectly fine that a guy is taping a phone to his binoculars and posting the photos to a blog. Why not. My only worry is that there is a strong popular pressure to accept everything as "good enough". It's an extension of the "anti-intelectualism" we've been famous for since Andrew Jackson's time. And it's not just in photography, but in English - you're just being arrogant if you worry about using "your" in the wrong place. Or go to Home Depot and look at the quality of building materials available. These athletes spend a great deal of their time and energy and resources getting to the olympics. I'm happy to see Canon and Nikon rolling out their best for the occasion as well.

Yes, exactly. To far too many people, there's no sense of standards anymore. So when you clarify, even gently and respectfully, the proper usage of "its" vs "it's" when it's a statement like "That camera sure chews through its battery" (NOT "it's") you're called the "grammar police" etc. I'm more of a 2+5=7 and it's not even up for discussion sort of person, & I think we need MORE of that sometimes.

Being an ignorant ass is seen as a badge of honour these days. I get told I know nothing when I, for example, point out it's "number of people" not "amount of people". We may as well all go back to caveman-speak. After all, wasn't that "good enough" to indicate your thoughts and intentions?

Funny discussion, that is exactly the same for the french language. In fact, people who care about "good standards" in photo as well as in our ability to speak correctly, must realize they are not so isolated as they think. It's just that an "acting minority" has succedeed in just 20 years in making the "silent majority" believe they became too few to be considerated.

I guess the return argument, and not one I necessarily subscribe too is that use of the English language should follow the rules. Spelling and grammar can either be correct or incorrect. There is not much room for opinion.

In photography, the question "Is this a good photograph" is entirely based on context and opinion. It is a question which cannot be answered without knowing why the photograph was taken and even if you know the context, you still cannot give a blanket answer which applies to every human being in existence.

I don't get the negativity about this. It's an interesting experiment. Obviously he's had to cheat a bit by using the binoculars, but that in itself is interesting. I didn't know that was possible. Trying different ways to get the best out of a phone cam. Showing good pics can be achieved. Most people in the crowd will be using either a compact digicam or a phone cam. This shows what can be achieved with experimentation and a good eye. There will be tens of thousands of pixel perfect images of the Olympics online for those who desire that sort of thing. This is something different. (Although it'd have been interesting to try the new Nokia Pure View 808 without the binoculars.)

I think this shows that a) You don't need pro gear to take a good shot. It takes imagination and an eye and skills to use what you have well. How clever using the binoculars! Lol! and b) smartphone cameras have come long way. Todays smartphone camera is the modern box brownie.

I feel a point will be proved if he uses a smartphone solely for all pictures in a year; job and recreation. Well, is he frustrated with the device yet, or did his skills with it eventually allow him to take the most amazing photos with it?

Though Dan covered several events, still once it's done he doesn't need to confine himself to the iPhone for the points to make on a blog. And as for these pics, several are good enough to make one think twice it was a phone, while most others.... yeah, no second looks

Many "photographers" here really had a big problem against iPhone or any smartphone users. Many of these "photographers" really complain on the technicalities side of photography like resolution, pixels, white balance. Is photography for these complainers is all about pixels, resolution, etc..? I guess they thought if they had the "best" and most expensive camera equipment out there, they feel like they're "professionals" and a good photographer. I guess these people complain against people using iPhones to create photographs can't create great photos from a "crappy" cameras...

And worse, they can't make a meaningful/moving image with their "greatest and baddest" pro camera that is currently sitting in their closets while they are busy reading gear reviews and arguing on blogs about photography... :)

I look at a photo and either I like it or I don't, mostly based on composition. I think many on this site have a different method.

1. Did they nail focus2. Is it sharp3. Is it clean at 100% view4. Is the white balance spot on5. Is it high resolution6. Was it made with the best gear? (extra points if same gear I own)7. Is the exposure exactly right (if not, it should be pushed at least 4 stops and be as clean as if you had exposed it correctly, one speck in the shadows and it's crap)8. How did the sensor in the camera that snapped said photo fair on DXO?

Then if those criteria are met, and only then, actually look at the subject and decide whether you like the photo or not.

When was the last time a photographer wanted to be primarily known for the camera he uses? That's right, when he's going out of his way to make a hipster comment about technology.

I'd have a lot more appreciation for his effort if he used a higher quality camera, then transferred or uploaded the pics to his phone (or other mobile device) for posting in near real time. You know, like what the umpteen thousand other professional photographers are doing because they are taking their job seriously over there.

Since everyone else is using a high-end camera for coverage, there's no need to have anymore of those users at the games, so a few here and there playing with their phones or other toys without sweating over all the missed shots is fine, because everyone else got the shots they needed to.

@Suntan: Dan gets a press pass at the Olympics and you don't precisely because he can get a great picture with an iPhone, and you most likely won't even with a $5K camera. That's why a guy showing up at the Olympics with a big camera and a backpackful of lenses does not get an automatic press pass... @Larry: That's why LeBron James will kick your b$tt with el-cheapo ball from Target, that's why Michael Phelps will outswim you even if he wears a diver suit. Its called talent, skills and professionalism, and nothing that you see flogged on DPR is going to get you any of those.

WOW this site amazes me. You call yourselfs photographers? Really? Shouldnt you be supporting a fellow photographer no matter what he used to take the photos? They are photos. Just that. Nothing more. A moment captured in time. You guys are nothing but gear heads that pixel peep and totally miss out on the big picture. I can only hope you're not like this in your everyday lives and I surely hope you don't act like this around your children if you have any. WOW.

Well, I would suggest that someone who calls himself a photographer, has front-row access to photographing the likes of Michael Phelps, LeBron James, and untold other top-notch athletes during a once-every-four-years event--and then proceeds to use a TOY camera for doing so despite having vastly better equipment readily as his disposal--I'm sorry, but that just seems silly to me, and like it or not, I'm calling them on it. It's nothing personal at all, but come on--if I were a chef & had the chance to prepare fine meals for important people at an event like this, I wouldn't heat up Chef-Boyardee in a pot on a hotplate & call myself a gourmet chef.

I am so serious about this, if I were to have a daughter getting married now (she's 5, way too soon) and I were to hire someone to photograph it vs doing so myself, I would interview them for their opinion on this topic, & if they disagree with me--I DON'T CARE how good they are, I won't hire them. I'm dead serious.

You are so right. The gear heads will never get it. They live in a different world. They have no idea what this article is about or what you are saying. They aren't even real photographers.Excellent post. Keep it up!.

Some great images ...you guys do know these are downsized for a blog right?But, people tend to get really defensive when they throw so much money at an item thinking it will make them better photographers.

I admit I wasn't scientifically accurate (if that isn't painfully obvious). It doesn't change the fact that people who appreciate photography outside of web-sized snaps going to feel some limitations with pictures taken with i-something.

To the a...holes posting snide comments about this: when was the last time you took a picture with your expensive gear that was half as good as those posted by Dan Chung? When was the last time you got half as many good pictures as are in that blog? Probably not in your whole lifetime. Losers...

Dan- Congratulations with a great image stream, you proved that gear is not a limitation when it is in good hands. Of course that goes poorly on a gadget frak site like DPR.

Just because I wasn't hired by the AP or whoever to cover the Olympics doesn't make my opinion or the others irrelevant. This notion you're applauding is hardly new, the adage "no photographer is as good as the simplest camera" goes back decades. Even so, it's also always been the case that when a person got their first "snapshot" camera, at some point they realized that they wanted to do more, to create something that would make one go "wow." They then IMMEDIATELY set their sights on a camera better than their current Polaroid etc so as to have a camera that really matches their aspirations, and they left the Kodak Instamatics in their rear-view-mirror **immediately**. It isn't about being "gear obsessed," it's about having gear that's commensurate with your aspirations, skill level, or both.

Why deliberately dumb yourself down just to make a silly point? You don't see Michael Phelps swimming at the Olympics in an Intex pool, do you?

The point is that after a couple of cameras post-Instamatic, the vast majority of photographers have a camera that out resolves their peak competency. Yet they continue to spend untold amounts of money on gear. This is a refreshing look at a photographer whose skills out resolves the camera.

And you should be very grateful because cameras would not be half as cheap and capable if all these "a-holes" didn't buy them. However I know quite a few very capable "a-holes" who could probably do a pretty fair job as well.

I presume you drive a Trabant because you are not a paid racing driver, so your car is probably a lot faster than you.....

Well go ahead and post some photos for us to see. Show us your skills. Let's all pixel peep them and tear apart how you took and them and how we all could have done better. Go ahead, post some. That's what I thought.

The reason why one would limit oneself with less capable gear is to challenge yourself....to push the gear and yourself to the limit....sometimes seeing what you can do with limited gear or tools forces you to think in new and creative ways...

I am with most here and say bravo...these are great shots....sure perhaps a bit noisy or of lower res...but the emotion and energy caught in these pictures far outweigh any technical downfalls...

Thank you for making sense and understanding the original intent of these pictures. We live in a world of nit pickers and pixel peepers who don't even know or like people like Ansel Adams and Galen Rowell. I have heard some of these fools complain about both of these photographers because they were out of focus or there was some distortion in their images. There is no way to get through to them, either.

Well pardon me for thinking that a shot that's out-of-focus, noisy, pixelated is not just "technically sharp"--it's JUNK. Your point of view will be good news to my relatives around here who can't get a picture free from blur if you gave them a Nikon D7000 set on "green auto" mode.

Some of the best Cartier-Bresson shots are blurry, but they work because they work emotionally. There is a diference between a shot that is technically good, and a great shot, sometimes they are two different things. Just because you can make sharp properly exposed images out of the Nikon D7000 does not always make you a great photographer. You need something else, an eye and the ability to express what your eye sees in a 2D image. On the flip side, a vast majority of out-of-focus shots are indeed junk. But the point that these iPhone images prove is that you dont need to have a D7000 to bring your vision to the people. Look around at the DPR forums, they are full of perfectly composed, well-exposed and bitingly sharp photos of streets, cats, plants, and kids that are mind-numbingly boring, because people who take them have no talent, and compensate by investing mega$$s in the professional level kit. I am not against it, I have a very good camera myself.

Now imagine what the pics look like without binoculars and the clip-on Schneider lens, and without Dan Chung. Actually you don't have to, there are plenty of them from the audience posted on Flickr and Facebook. Horrid.

I'm next, and YOU (wrider) don't get it. You do not DARE insult photography & the potential excellence of it by deliberately using a Fisher Price-esque TOY when you're at the freaking OLYMPICS with a front-stage pass. For crying out loud man--do you see LeBron James playing hoops with $10 shoes from Payless going "I"m here to challenge myself" or "a good basketball player doesn't get obsessed about the shoes he wears, if he's any good he can play barefooted on hot concrete?"

Do you see Michael Phelps swimming in a drainage ditch saying "I want to see how good I can swim without the ideal, perfect standardized pool?" Maybe we need to see Tiger Woods (or whoever we now say is the world's best golf player) playing golf using a plain wooden pool from a broom. Maybe we should ask the marathon runners to see how fast they can run jumping in a potato sack.

The opinion of "dylanbarnhart" is dead-on, the others advocating this silliness--**YOU** don't get it. ***NEXT***

Yepp, Larry, you just don't get it. There are plenty other photographers shooting the Olympics with pro-sports kits. This is a different experiment, and you got to give Dan props for trying it, as a challenge, as an experiment. As for taking the place of other photographers, well, 100% f people on this site would never get a press pass at the Olympics, because they suck, even if you give them a 600mm Canon lens with a 1D. Dan earned his press pass an not by using an iPhone. So, chill out. As for you picking your daughter's wedding photographer based on his/her gear- well, luckily, this will be her decision, not yours, otherwise you will get crappy perfectly exposed pictures. Maybe news to you, but good photography takes talent, not just technique.

Ho Dan Chung! I hope you are having a blast! What are you proving? You are proving that no matter what camera we own, what we can afford, we can have fun with photography and create photos that we can look back on with great memories. Yes you could do better with a more "professional" piece of equipment, we all know that, but I really appreciate what you have done with what you have been given! Great talent, the oportunity to be there, and lot's of just plain hard work. I do not have a TV. I would have missed the Olympics once again. But these were a treat. Too bad you could not have been everwhere at once. :)Thank you very much. You inspire me to work harder at my photography. After all, is'nt hard work what the Olympics are all about?

And when was the last time you bought Sports Illustrated (other than the swim suit issue)? All those high quality yellow cover National Geographic magazines are where? Self help stores won't even accept them for free. Point is that the way in which consumers aquire images has changed and very few people seem to care about the super high res glossy images any more. It is very sad because I am one of those people but I can't expect the people producing media for consumers to cater to the minority when I am not willing to pay the premium. So we all get stupendis amounts of medium quality images for a bargain. Just the way it is.

Well, its true that sport has now been overtaken by video, since most people catch up on video news feeds. But there are still touchlines full of long lenses.

And for that matter plenty of magazines containing great photography, just not the ones we probably all remember as being known for it.

Photojournalism on the whole is not resolution obsessed. The D4 is "only" 16MP. 12MP D3s's are still widely used. Most phonecams come quite close to that already. But at ISO3200 a phone cam cannot even make a convincing HDTV image.

And I can't see landscape photographers switching to low resolution solutions any time soon.

This looks more like an "I can do this with one hand tied behind my back" bet. Some of the images are great, some are mediocre, many suffer (imo) from poor subject isolation due to the large depth of field or lack of dynamic range to capture the event, and some of the really cool shots are function of the positioning afforded to pros.

I think it's an interesting study simply because it shows you what the limits are with a talented photographer. Despite a couple of really great shots, the majority have the flat look of very limited equipment. They would be useful as a way to dress up an otherwise text-only narrative but do not make for a compelling photo-blog.

(note: I have an iPhone 4 and one of the standout features is the camera. It's awesome to have "all the time," but it stays in my pocket when I have another camera with me)

OK, I checked out his pics. OK snapshots with the equivalent of a decent point and shoot. Made possible only because his employer told him "we're going to experiment here. Use your iPhone and let's see what happens", not "and make sure you get the shot". Great work if you can get it.

I would hate to have a boss like that. I'm probably being "all talk no action," but I dare say I would even REFUSE to do as he asked, I'd tell my boss "I'm not using some PHONE to take photos at the Olympics, I've got a Nikon/Canon so & so I'm using THAT. If you want iPhone pics so bad, take 'em yourself, or grab someone from the stands & have THEM do it."

Guess how many photographers used their best equipment, got superior images and no one ever hears about them? Sometimes PR is as important as the actual results - if not more so. Both the agency and the photographer got mentioned a lot, so their goal was achieved. Being better known means more future jobs / higher price taken for the same assignments. In the business sense - a job well done! As far as photography goes - meeeh...

With an iphone you get a decent camera as well as s/w to quickly manipulate and publish the images on-line.In the hands of a professional photographer, this to me seems like the perfect combination for writing a blog covering a live sports event...

Like the G5 Olympic photos, these are fine at 460px wide, and the shooter has concentrated on taking actions shots where he can easily predict the action. When I see some G5 or iPhone shots of a soccer match that rival those taken by a pro with high-end gear,I'll be impressed. Neither camera is useful for taking shots of quickly moving subjects and continous AF. I like Chung's shots, but they illustrate a very skilled shooter who is living within the limitation of his tools, not the capability of the tools.

Quite agree with you. The photographer is very good and the tool not-so-bad... so let see what can be produced when we combinate the two, something like that: http://youtu.be/hk5IMmEDWH4

Or when a Paris Opera or Vienna Philharmonic super-solist is challenged to play his best on an entry-class violin. It can be fun, even interesting but could it make the deal when it comes to high standard concerts where every client wants to get his money's worth ? The doubt is allowed.

I somehow don't think that all the photog used was just an iphone, i bet he shot a load with his "normal equipment"....though methinks the "little cam" can now be added to the list of "normal" equipment looking at these results!

A spate of articles lately on this site touting the use of devices other than the highest end professional ones are consistent with the "Challenges" in another area of DPR. Both groups underscore the irrelevance of equipment in making an appealing/arresting/mystifying/compelling image while also confirming that anyone is capable of making a few good pictures no matter what camera he or she uses.

The problem is that few photographers who command our ongoing interest are capable of making one let alone many series of appealing/arresting/mystifying/compelling images over a long period of time and those who do emphasize vision not equipment. What camera did Bill Brandt use? Harry Callahan? Ray Metzker? Cindy Sherman? Manuel Bravo?

As has been said countless times, the best camera in the world is the one you have with you there and then.

Saying "what wonderful photos, you must have a really professional camera" is on the level with saying "wonderful food, you must have a really advanced food processor" or "you run really fast, you must have really great shoes"...

I do believe runners make a point to get shoes appropriate for marathon or sprint running, as opposed to buying them from "Payless." I doubt you see LeBron James running up & down the court in flip-flops yelling to Coack K "hey, a good basketball player can play wearing ANYTHING." I doubt the chefs at the 5-star restaurants in London are preparing their meals using Stouffer's "Meal in a Bag" cooked in a garage-sale skillet over a campfire. I don't see Michael Phelps swimming in a drainage ditch.

I'm not a professional, merely a "hobbyist," but when I went to the Ozark Mountains last week, knowing nice landscapes awaited me, I used an Olympus E-PL1 and Nikon D5100, NOT my phone's camera--not even for silly snaps of us eating in a cafe. Such is beneath decent photography if you ask me. Call me an "elitist" all you want, I don't care. And no, saying "if you really cared, you'd taken a D800 or medium format" is NOT saying the same thing.

Like I said with the G5. All you people out there that think if you guy the best gear available you become a good photographer. Think again. It does not matter what you use. A good photo is a good photo regardless of what you use. I have seen some terrible photos taken with D4's and 1D's using the best glass. And....welcome to the digital age, where 90% of your photos will be viewed at around 2 megapixels. When was the last time you printed one of your photos larger than A3 ?

Many of the readers of this site are camera users first, and photographers a far distant second, if at all.

For us taking a good photo is entirely secondary to the experience of owning the gear that would be capable of taking a good photo - should we for some strange reason desire to do so - oh and if we had the technical and aesthetic skills to do so.

Now try and tell us it's not the gear!!

And as for "the best camera is the one you have with you".Phooey. The best camera has superlatively large or small numbers in the specification section of brochure or catalog and more acronyms than a bowl of alphabet soup.

An iPhone in the pocket is not worth a D4 in the locker.

Anything else is falls within the purview artists or - gasp - photographers and we want nothing to do with it or them.

Why would you want to sully a perfectly good - or, even better, superlatively good camera with photography?:)

Hahaha!I was among the critics of the "Moutharopoulos stunt", but here I must acknowledge that the photos are so masterfully taken that their quality is not so important anymore.

Ok, they are small and all that, but boy, are they beautifull! This man is a talent - and he wants to become a videographer (and at least reduce his commitment with "pure" photography), as he stated before!

I also imagine that here he was the one to chose his tool, not Panasonic marketing office, and I see the advertising message as less intense or at least less direct: the iphone stands for "smartphone with a camera", it's not even the one with the better camera out there.